View Forum Topic

Forums
CS332F
rackunit tests

Author	Message
layla08 Posts: 70	Posted 19:54 Oct 16, 2015 \| When I run my rackunit tests, the Failures show up as expected, but I also see several lines of #<procedure:>>. What produces this and is it normal to see this during a test? Thanks! Welcome to DrRacket, version 6.2.1 [3m]. Language: racket; memory limit: 128 MB. #<procedure:>> #<procedure:>> -------------------- FAILURE actual: #f expected: #t name: check-equal? location: (unsaved-editor 10 2 360 49) expression: (check-equal? (is-a-palindrome? '(1 2 2 2 2)) #t) . . Check failure -------------------- #<procedure:>> #<procedure:>> #<procedure:>> -------------------- FAILURE actual: #t expected: #f name: check-equal? location: (unsaved-editor 13 2 612 49) expression: (check-equal? (is-a-palindrome? '(1 2 z 2 1)) #f) . . Check failure -------------------- >
vsluong4 Posts: 87	Posted 20:34 Oct 16, 2015 \| A procedure in Racket is a function That output means that something in your code is returning a function and the console is just outputting it, because the console just outputs anything that is returned More specifically, it looks like > is the function that is being returned
layla08 Posts: 70	Posted 12:50 Oct 17, 2015 \| Thanks for your response! Everything works in the Interactions panel (there is no output if the test passes, but there is a failure report if it doesn't pass), but I'm still unsure of why a function is being returned when I write a check-equal? in the Definitions panel. When I run my rackunit, shouldn't it also behave the same and only produce the failures? Is it okay to get #<procedure:> back at all? It doesn't seem like it should. Last edited by layla08 at 12:53 Oct 17, 2015.
giraid Posts: 39	Posted 20:02 Oct 18, 2015 \| This does not answer your question. But I dont think you are using rackunit test the way it is intended. You should check your function against the expected result. In your case, you should check it against #f instead of #t.
layla08 Posts: 70	Posted 20:16 Oct 18, 2015 \| Problem solved. The answer was no, it shouldn't produce any <procedures>. I had an extra symbol that was messing everything up. The output should be completely empty if the tests are all passed, and there should be a failure report if a test doesn't pass. Thanks for your help everyone. Last edited by layla08 at 21:21 Oct 18, 2015.